2
1 st WGLC ended. Thank you for many feedbacks. Weve just submitted a renamed revision, titled draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without- ipv6nat-00 – NAT66 was removed from the title, because it does not assume any specific mechanism of NAT. – This revision hopefully addressed all of the issues pointed out during WGLC.

3
definition of multihoming Not a few people misinterpreted multihoming in this document, and assumed BGP way of multihoming. The goal of this document is to provide a multihoming method for a small site that cannot deal with PI address or BGP operation, and without breaking end-to-end transparency of IPv6. – Which was clarified in intro. and elsewhere.

4
security consideration was expanded RFC4218 examines threats that are inherent to all IPv6 multihoming solutions, especially not routing(BGP) based ones. – So, this document shares most of the threats studies in RFC 4218. Additionally, some possible threats are described that may be introduced by policy providing approaches.

5
2 nd WGLC ? About next step – Another round of WGLC ? – Just the verifications from people who gave us feedbacks ?